Thanks for the link. If I sleep on my back my jaw slackens and moves back toward my throat and blocks the throat or at least constricts and I snore. I tried a device like a mouth guard that captures the lower teeth but the pressure on my front teeth of holding my jaw up hurt. If I sleep on either side then my jaw doesn't fall back and all is good.
Chin straps don't work with me. My face shape is kinda flat, and my temporomandibular joint is kinda messed up and doesn't hold my teeth together naturally. The chin straps I've tried all pull my chin down towards the airway.
A mouth guard plus chin strap may work but yeah there's that front teeth holding up the whole chin pressure.
Would be cool to build an analog gauge cockpit for a flight simulator program. You would really appreciate the workload required by the pilots of old; before software ate the world.
It's a doable and fun project. I did it a few years ago, designing a small set of instruments in Fusion 360, 3d printing them, using stepper motors and an arduino to handle movement, and using Mobiflight[1] and FSUIPC[2] to handle the firmware and communication with MS Flight Simulator.
DCS-BIOS[3] is a similar project for interacting with DCS.
There's something really, really neat about seeing real physical instruments spinning around in response to a computer game. And they're actually often a lot easier to use than the instruments in-game, too.
There are several of those projects on youtube that people build scale accurate cockpits (mostly from scratch) as hobbyists for a variety of flight simulators.
Plenty of it in big companies but you won't see a new release. The existing 8.5.5 and 9 will be supported through 2030 but customers are being encouraged to migrate their existing WAS apps to Liberty on OpenShift. There are several migration tools that help analyze the code and runtime for the best way to dissect legacy Java.
Given how suggestible people are one would expect the power of suggestion to show up elsewhere. For instance, the area of gender identity. Just like the "false memory" craze in psychology back in the 80's and 90's, today we have an army of psychologist / psychiatry / social services / (and yes, those who have identified themselves as trans something,) heavily invested in telling (young) people they are "a certain way." Someone may be searching for their identity and may not feel comfortable with the "standard" models but that doesn't mean the psy-industrial-complex is correct in saying "you are X". People are making impossible-to-reverse life-changing decisions based on the cheering section telling them "you are X," in the same way people were being sent to jail based on "repressed memories" implanted back then by the same industrial complex. There may be people who really are trans-x but it might be wiser counsel to wait for maturity before a person makes such a decision.
This is what I thought when I read this page too. I've been recently looking into what's being done to children and teenagers in the name of 'trans' and it's horrifying. Teenagers are being told the solution to their mental health problems is hormones and amputation of their reproductive organs, and many of them are regretting it.
There is NO ROOM for trends and fads in medicine. None.
But we're being told that scientific evidence and risk assesment are transphobic. I truly believe this to be the biggest medical scandal in decades, but speaking out about it will have you banned from social media, fired from your job, and lose your friends and family.
Assuming the data is accurate it can be used to show disparities between groups for a variety of situations - traffic stops, arrests, jail vs. diversion programs, charge stacking, etc..
How is that policing the police? Are disparities supposed to be evidence of something nefarious going on? Given that there are fundamental distinctions between members in different groups (otherwise they would be in the same group) and almost certainly many other non-fundamental distinctions that correlate with the group-defining distinction, is it not entirely plausible that there should be disparities in police statistics even when police act appropriately 100% of the time?
I will say that we are not wading into this. We focus on accessibility; if you point to a big pile of ugly data, the first thing that will happen is that a bunch of very smart people will analyze it. We’re trying to make the big pile, which is currently in like half a million small piles.
>is it not entirely plausible that there should be disparities in police statistics even when police act appropriately 100% of the time?
The National Crime Victimization Survey says yes. Also any article you see trying to debunk FBI crime stats but doesn't mention the NCVS (and how the NCVS largely corroborates the FBI stats) is either ignorant or willfully deceiving you.
Depends on what the data shows. For instance, nobody ever wants to talk about why 95% of those killed in police shootings are males. It's far more disproportionate than any of the race based numbers that make headlines daily, and yet..nothing.
This seems to indicate the data will always and only be used to tell a preferred narrative.
Downvotes aside I think I'm more worried about this. The preferred native approach, that's the risk that undermines things like this.
Despite the downvotes your example is good I think it's safe to say the 95% male to female ratio is likely to be down to males more likely to be involved in violent incidents than females. No one really has a problem with this until skin colour comes into it. As a society though tackling the cause of why males get into violent confrontations seems like a no brainer.
...because there's a plausible and uncontested rationale, unlike skin color? Men generally have more testosterone, which leads to aggression and worse impulse control. Nobody's talking about the reason men are 95% of police shootings because it's pretty obvious.
> ...because there's a plausible and uncontested rationale, unlike skin color? Men generally have more testosterone, which leads to aggression and worse impulse control.
Why isn't it plausible that different groups are different in some ways? For instance, when it comes to testosterone, this seems to be the science.
> In fact, African American men have higher exposure to testosterone, the main biologically potent circulating androgen, than their Caucasian and Asian counterparts, beginning in the in utero period. African American women have testosterone levels that exceed those of Caucasian women by 50% or more in early pregnancy, an exposure that has been hypothesized to permanently alter the “gonadostat,” the hypothalamic-pituitary-testicular axis, in African American male offspring relative to Caucasians. African American men during young adulthood also have substantially higher circulating testosterone levels than their Caucasian counterparts (approximately 13 to 15% difference at age 20 years). Although this difference appears to dissipate with age, African American men still have slightly higher testosterone levels than Caucasians (≈3% higher) at age 40 years.
You're right that men are far more likely to be involved in violent incidents which are likely to lead to potentially violent confrontations with police. You're also right that this difference largely explains the disparity in the percentage of people shot by police by gender.
I guess the question is why people don't think that correlation holds true by race (or culture) as well. The percentages match up. For instance, white males (and black males and hispanic males) are actually over-represented as demographic cohorts who are victims of police shootings, whereas asian males and women of all races are under-represented. This tracks exactly with violent crime rates.
Perhaps we should address this a gender problem more than a racial problem. At least, that's what the data tells us.
When I was going to school in the late 70's we toured the archeology lab at Cal State Northridge. The guide pointed out a section of pre-45 steel ship's propeller shaft (about 1.5 - 2' in diameter, hole through the center) that was used for radiocarbon dating.
Thanks for citing a Washington Examiner opinion piece as evidence of your assertion. Sometimes teaching kids about sexuality is meant to educate them so they don't grow up ignorant an can make informed decisions. Some people are against that.
Those who think that females should have as much education as males are explicitly saying that they want the females to be more ignorant than the males.
It is absolutely the case in certain circumstances.
I know several evangelical parents who want their kids ignorant about sexual health because they think teaching kids about sexual health will lead to them engaging in sex. Of course, thats not how it works, and these kids just end up engaging in sex while totally uninformed or in some cases filled with disinformation (for example, being told that condoms don't work - the parents think if the kids believe there is no safe sex that they won't have sex - but the kids end up having sex and don't use a condom because they believe it doesn't work).
bullet 2 is at odds with your initial statement. The data collected are from interactions with the smart speaker. Here is the opening sentence of the abstract:
"Abstract—Smart speakers collect voice input that can be used to infer sensitive information about users".
